Four-Corner Arthrodesis with a Dorsal Locking PEEK Plate: A Retrospective Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Four-corner arthrodesis (4CA) can be performed with a variety of methods. To our knowledge, fewer than 125 cases of 4CA with a locking polyether ether ketone (PEEK) plate have been reported, necessitating further study. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the radiographic union rate and clinical outcomes in a series of patients who received 4CA with a locking PEEK plate. Methods We re-examined 39 wrists in 37 patients at a mean follow-up of 50 months (median: 52 months, range: 6–128). Patients completed the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH), Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), and participated in measurements of grip strength and range of motion. Anteroposterior, lateral, and oblique radiographs of the operative wrist were examined for union, screw breakage and/or loosening, and lunate change. Results The mean QuickDASH score was 24.4 and the mean PRWE score was 26.5. Mean grip strength was 29.2 kg or 84% of the nonoperative hand. Mean flexion, extension, radial deviation, and ulnar deviation were : 37.2, 28.9, 14.1, and 17.4 degrees, respectively. Eighty-seven percent of wrists achieved union; 8% had nonunion; and5% had indeterminate union. There were seven cases of screw breakage and seven cases of screw loosening (as defined by lucency or bony resorption surrounding screws). Twenty-three percent of wrists required reoperation (four total wrist arthrodesis and five reoperations for other reasons). Conclusion 4CA with a locking PEEK plate has clinical and radiographic outcomes similar to other methods. We observed a high rate of hardware complications. It is unclear whether this implant offers a clear advantage over other methods of fixation used in 4CA. Type of Study/Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".